June 4, 2010

Here are quotes from the summary of the new Pew report on interracial marriage in 2008. Note a few things. This is based on the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey of 3 million people, not the decennial enumeration of 100 times that number Plus, note the distinction between newlyweds and married couples: people who get married in 2008 versus people who are married in 2008. So, there could be some sample size issues versus the actual Census. Still, when you start with 3 million people, you can slice and dice pretty far.

Also, 41% of babies born in 2008 were illegitimate, so marriage stats tend to look at what the upper 3/5ths or so of society are doing. Only about 28% of babies born to black women were legitimate and only 49% of babies born to Hispanics were legitimate, so marriage behavior and mating behavior are increasingly disconnected.

Even with that sharp increase, however, black-white couplings represented only about one-in-nine of the approximately 280,000 new interracial or interethnic marriages in 2008.

White-Hispanic couples accounted for about four-in-ten (41%) of such new marriages; white-Asian couples made up 15%; and white-black couples made up 11%.

I.e., "nonwhites" include Hispanics who self-identify as whites. Also, there's no multi-ethnic category as there is a multi-racial category, so a lot of these Hispanics marrying non-Hispanic whites might be actually half or a quarter Hispanic. So, for example, if blonde actress Cameron Diaz, daughter of an American-born Cuban father and an Old American (English, German, Cherokee) mother who grew up on the beach in Southern California, married, say, ex-boyfriend Matt Dillon, it would, theoretically, count as an "interracial marriage."

The remaining third consisted of marriages in which each spouse was a member of a different minority group or in which at least one spouse self-identified as being American Indian or of mixed or multiple races.

Of the 3.8 million adults who married in 2008, 9% of whites, 16% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 31% of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

For whites these shares are more than double what they had been in 1980 and for blacks they are nearly triple. For Hispanics and Asians, by contrast, these rates are little changed from 1980. High levels of Hispanic and Asian immigration over the past several decades helped drive both seemingly contradictory trends.

For whites and blacks, the new immigrants and (increasingly) their now grown U.S.-born children have enlarged the pool of potential partners for marrying outside one's own racial or ethnic group. But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has greatly enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marrying.

Gender: Among blacks and Asians, there are stark differences by gender in the tendency to marry outside their own racial group. Some 22% of all black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the opposite way. Some 40% of Asian female newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 20% of Asian male newlyweds.Among whites and Hispanics, by contrast, there are no gender differences in intermarriage rates.

These gender gap ratios for newlyweds are actually less extreme than those seen for married couples in 1990 and 2000.

Correction -- That's looking at black or Asian intermarriage rates with everybody else, when what people are most interested in (and what my 1990s and 2000s articles were about) is black-white or white-Asian intermarriage. My earlier articles looked at white-black and white-Asian rates, not black-all other and Asian-all other.

Plus, that's just looking at percentages of people who got married, when a big issue is that fewer black women than black men and fewer Asian men than Asian women were getting married to anybody. Pew should give us the raw counts of interracial marriages in 2008 rather than putting everything in percentage terms, which can be misleading and confusing. Unfortunately, they don't.

Another way to look at this is that white men in 2008 were 3.90 times as likely to marry an Asian woman as a black woman, while white women were only 0.47 times as likely to marry an Asian man as a black man. (See p. 10 of the full report.) That's a big difference.

I'm tempted to divide 3.90 by 0.47 to come up with 8.33, but 8.33 what? What does 8.33 mean, if anything? One reason the prose style is so polished in my 1997 "Is Love Colorblind?" is that it took me a long time to get to the point that I was confident I was handling the algebra in a humanly meaningful way.

Also, the Asian population has shifted considerably in the direction of South Asians since 1990, who are rather different from East Asians in marital behavior.

About 9% of both male and female white newlyweds in 2008 married a nonwhite spouse and about a quarter of both male and female Hispanic newlyweds in 2008 married someone who is not Hispanic.

States and Regions: Intermarriage in the United States tilts West. About one-in-five (21%) of all newlyweds in Western states married someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2008, compared with 13% in the South and Northeast and 11% in the Midwest. All nine states with out-marriage rates of 20% or more in 2008 are situated west of the Mississippi River: Hawaii (43%); Nevada (28%); Oregon (24%); Oklahoma (23%); California (22%); New Mexico (22%); Colorado (21%); Arizona (21%); and Washington (20%). (See Appendix III for a fifty state table).

Regional out-marriage patterns vary in other ways. For example, blacks who live in the West are three times as likely to out-marry as are blacks who live in the South and twice as likely as blacks in the Northeast or Midwest.

Among Hispanics, by contrast, the highest rate of out-marriage is in the Midwest (41%) reflecting a general tendency for out-marriage rates to be higher among smaller groups.

Blacks who live in places like North Dakota have very high rates of intermarriage with whites: there aren't many other blacks for them to marry, and many of them got to these kind of states through the military, so they have been preselected for IQ, lawfulness, and have been culturally molded by the military

As for Asians, relatively few live in the South, but those who do are more likely to out-marry (37%) than are those who live in other regions.

The nation's most populous state, California, presents the following anomaly: in 2008, white (20%) and black (36%) newlyweds were more likely to out-marry than were Hispanics (18%).

That's what I see every day in California: Latinos with Latinos. This seems especially true for Mexicans, but less true for, say, South Americans. If we assume that LA is test driving the American future, then what we're likely to see is the whiter shades of Hispanics merging into the white population, but also less and less intermarriage of mestizos as their numbers grow larger.

In all other states where data are available for these groups, the reverse was true-Hispanic newlyweds out-married at higher rates than did whites or blacks. (See appendix for states and regional table or click here for an interactive map)

Education: Marrying out is more common among adults who attended college than among those who did not, but these differences are not large. Of all newlyweds in 2008, 15.5% of those who attended college married outside their race or ethnicity, compared with 13.5% of those who completed high school and 11.0% of those who did not complete high school.

Nativity Status: Marrying out is much more common among native-born adults than among immigrants. Native-born Hispanics are more than three times as likely as the foreign born to marry a non-Hispanic.The disparity among native- and foreign-born Asians is not as great, but it is still significant; native-born Asian-Americans are nearly twice as likely as those who are foreign born to marry a non-Asian.

Here again, there are sharp gender differences. Among Asian men, the native born are nearly four times as likely as the foreign born to marry out. Among Asian women, the native born are only about 50% more likely than the foreign born to marry a non-Asian.

So, the gender gap is much smaller among American-born Asians: 39.5% outmarriage for American-born Asian women versus 30.8% among American-born Asian men. Asian parents are intentionally congregating together it certain communities -- e.g, largely abandoning the San Fernando Valley in favor of the San Gabriel Valley. This self-segregation in places like Arcadia has a lot of reasons (e.g., control of the public schools), but it also gives their sons a better chance.

But, it would be interesting to remove South Asians from this figure.

Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlywed couples among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people 20-24 and 25-29.

1) Over 41% US-Born (Native) Asian men married someone of a different race/ethnicity in 20082) Over 50% US-Born (Native) Asian women married someone of a different race/ethnicity in 20083) From 1980 to 2008, the interracial marriage rates for US-Born (Native) Asian men have hovered around 40 percent

When the Asian male/female interracial marriage disparity is discussed, Sailer ignores that roughly half of the US Asian Population are 1st generation immigrants. Most of these immigrant Asians (men) have English as a second language, are culturally ‘Asian’, are typically older, immigrated to the US already married, etc. But when you isolate Asians who are born in the US (or raised in the US) only - this means these Asians speak English fluently and are raised in American culture - the interracial marriage disparity between these Asian-American males/females lessens to where it is 41% vs 50%.

"Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlyweds among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people less than 30."

This is because the over 30 demographic is enriched with divorcees, beta males, and fat skanks. They are somewhat more desperate to hook up and are willing to forgo all those "requirements" for the ideal mate that they worked out over beer and Doritos with their college roommates. Also, marrying outside your race or ethnic group is a lot easier to do AFTER your parents are dead -- and it's far more likely you've lost a parent or parents after 40.

I wonder why East Asians and South Asians haven't objected to being counted as one group by government and private instutions.

While I'm sure it would be a uncomfortable issue to bring up, there seem to be enough differences in behavior and culture to warrent different catagories.

From the very few South Asians I've dealt with, they seem to be very endogamous among both male and females. I was pretty surprised when I read that the candidate for SC Gov. Nikki Haley, married a white guy. Then again I was also surprised to find out she was Indian.

On the east asian, south asian differences ... I wonder if more is the cultural differences of the asians vs American male and female desirability standards. East asian women have certain traits that tend to make them attractive to white men ... and vice versa.

For example, American women prefer their men to be taller and heavier than them. This is easy for east asian females, white male partners.

East asian women also tend to have little body hair, which American men find attractive. South Asian women tend to be more .. hirsute.

My dating experience spans the spectrum of American women, but I will say the half and quarter asian-white mix produces a lot of beautiful women -- the slender asian waist and hairless body with a fuller white girl figure.

I do think most is cultural -- with South Asians being more insular and having larger extended families -- but American men don't find South Asian women nearly as attractive, on average, as East Asian women.

I do think most is cultural -- with South Asians being more insular and having larger extended families -- but American men don't find South Asian women nearly as attractive, on average, as East Asian women.

On the whole, based on personal observation, it appears that South Asian/European mating, as with Hispanics, is approximately sex-balanced. This would make sense considering that South Asians resemble Europeans far more than East Asians do.

Arranged marriages lead to somewhat more immigrant South Asian men than women intermarrying, but among US-born and -raised South Asians, women seem slightly more likely than men to mix with whites, although not as much as East Asians. Why would this be? Possibly because South Asians seem to have somewhat lower obesity rates due to their vegetarian diets.

Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlyweds among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people less than 30.

I have a few theories on this, being 28 years old.

First of all, the "Facebook effect" has seemed to lead to tighter networking among young whites, but not those in their 30s and older (who don't use Facebook nearly as much). Consequently, whites in their 20s are less likely to be socially isolated from other whites and be "picked off" by minorities, so to speak. I say this because it has pretty much had this effect on me, and I cannot imagine that I am the only one.

Secondly, among the younger whites, there is somewhat of a stigma attached to out-marriage. White guys who date Asian women (especially foreign-born ones) are tarred as socially inept and/or promiscuous. Young white women who date black men are similarly seen as slutty and low-class.

Observation of a moderately large sample drawn from several areas of the USA persuades me that the the effects of South Asian vegetarianism do not include keeping South Asian women slender on average in the USA. Although in my sample there are many slender South Asian men married to well-padded South Asian women, and many couples both of whom are well-padded, only a small proportion of the married South Asian women are slender.

Separately, I see on TV and the Internet that Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women with any money are nearly all chubby, though their menfolk are often not.

(Most of my sample are presumably middle-to-upper caste, since it includes many scientists, medical practicioners, engineers, computer geeks, and their families, plus a bunch of innkeeper types.)

Anon:"American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

Here in Britain however, intermarriage is an epidemic on a level seen nowhere else in the West."

I agree. Here in London, outside of a few of the wealthiest areas it seems more common to see a white mother with a brown (half-African) baby than with a white (all-British) baby. When you do see a white baby, it's usually Polish. My street of ca 120 residences is about half white, but I think my son is the only white child.

Simon,the white British population of many London Boroughs is less than 50% and for the under 35s probably only 25-30% in 15-20 Boroughs.

Most native Brits with any sense got out of London years ago.

It won't be long before the majority of the population in many boroughs will be nearly all ethnic, mixed-race and white women. This will not be pleasant for white women even if they have mixed-race children. They will not have the wherewithal to move either.

I live in Tower Hamlets where the school population is approx 90% 'minority'.

Spelling bee winner part of Indian-American streakBy LAUREN SAUSSER (AP) – 6 hours agoWASHINGTON — Shantanu Srivatsa and Anamika Veeramani sat nervously, side by side on stage.Once again, an Indian-American was going to win the Scripps National Spelling Bee. It was just a matter of what word and what time on Friday.Shantanu, 13, an eighth-grader from West Fargo, N.D., stepped to the microphone first and couldn't spell "ochidore."Anamika — showing the cool demeanor she kept throughout — kept her hands behind her back and rattled off the correct letters for the medical term "stromuhr." She didn't crack a smile until the trophy was presented.

American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

It's the fact of it that concerns people, not just the rate of it. A lower rate only means whites will go extinct later rather than sooner. Of course, we're potentially talking hundreds of years for complete extinction, but effective extinction -- political dispossession, powerlessness -- will occur well before that.

I think Steve places this line of thought in the "You can't say that!" files so it'll be interesting to see whether it gets posted. He should note in weighing it up that the observation itself, of itself, is politically neutral: it's just what's occurring. There's nothing inherently right wing or left wing or any wing about it; it's just a phenomenon and this is what it undeniably portends. One might favor or disfavor that phenomenon but there it is.

American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

Here in Britain however, intermarriage is an epidemic on a level seen nowhere else in the West.

I think you're projecting. One reason to discuss this is that rates are low, since intermarriage can be taken as a proxy for assimilation. And the ongoing immigration that gives people partners from their own race also produces ethnic enclaves and discourages assimilation.

To the extent I worry about miscegenation it's as a part of reverse assimilation: multi-culti-brainwashed young natives assimilating into "vibrant" (confident and assertive) minority or immigrant cultures, and contributing to balkanization rather than real assimilation. And when the male and female numbers are as different as they are, you add a demographic balkanization in as well.

Indian women want to marry up or the same levelThis means finding a guy with college degree ( removes 75% of whites ), making over 100K ( removes 90% of whites )And many of the white men making over 100K and with a college degree will not be interested in Indian women

The next problem is christianityIndians live in extended families and having christian member inside is very disruptive, with constant references to heathens, pagans and idol worshippers and vegetarians. Even christian-jew marriages are very stressful

Indian men will also not marry non-virgins ( rules out 99% of natives ). In Indian society, non-virgin = Wh***

Regarding Africans There are a million negritos ( asian negro ) in Indian forests, primitive, with frizzly hair, and thick lips and are considered untouchablesAlso, there is an African group called Siddhi, these were pirates and mostly muslim and also untouchable Finally the muslim sultans imported thousands of black slaves called Habshis , mostly muslim and untouchable also

The 2010 spelling bee winner, Anamika Veeramani, is from a Dravidian landlord casteTheir modal Y-Haplogroup is L1, which they have 40% concentrationL1 is present in North India at 10% and 4% in middle-eastL1 is generally absent among Australian Abos

yeah, the statistics for the "asian" group are starting to get confounded. putting all humans from asia into one category is not accurate.

i think these numbers corroborate what i see on the street. white men with east/southeast asian women is by far the most frequently occuring interracial couple, much more common than black men with white women. despite there being 40 million africans in the US and only 8 million or so "asians", the white /asian couple is now more common even in absolute numbers. and since not all 8 million "asians" are east/southeast asians, the real rate of occurence for this couple is even higher than what the numbers here show.

europeans and africans are clearly not merging into one genetic group, despite being together for 400 years. black americans might be slowly becoming a little more european over time, though. i see tons of evidence of this whenever i see the covers of black men's magazines at the gas station, or even music videos from black musicians. mulatto women appear far out of proportion to their real numbers and are clearly considered more attractive and desirable.

i've been seeing a few asian men with white women in the last 15 years, and it looks like that is showing up in the numbers. they're usually totally americanized guys, not directly from asia, who grew up around white girls and clearly prefer them over asian girls. i have a couple asian friends like that.

Maybe not if he wants to get a large quantity of tail, but the quality of the tail will be substantially reduced.

I actually know a Casanova like this. His roommate reported to me that he does indeed get laid a lot, but it's either Asian women (usually Chinese students) or nasty-looking white women of the sort that my roommate wouldn't let his male member get anywhere close to. If my town had a large black population he'd probably have lots of black women over too. Our white female acquaintances consider him "just a friend" and would consider sleeping with him to be gross, to put it mildly.

Miscegenation doesn't really bother me, although if I had my druthers I'd rather not see it. But the progeny usually look like some kind of new sub-species, which I find a little unsettling. I often catch myself thinking: 'I hope that kid never needs an organ transplant.'

Partially this is caused by their cuisine, which generally involves a more than healthy serving of oil. Being a vegetarian is no benefit. The truth is vegetarian eating is pretty tasteless and the remedy to this is to fry everything.

The second factor is that any South Asian woman of means is extremely sedentary. With labor costs as low as they are, servants and hired to do anything and everything. A high status south Asian woman generally does not work (not so much for immigrants to the US).

The biggest contributor is probably genetic. South Asians are genetically pre-disposed to obesity and the only reason their homeland isn't full of fatties is because most of them simply can't afford to get enough to eat.

Actually further to my last comment, my Muslim neighbour is Bangladeshi. They're fairly laid-back about Islam, but a bunch of Salafi Islamists live a few doors down, and they seem to be trying to recruit my neighbour's children. The niqab-veiled female recently knocked on my door by mistake.

I think that American's in general have the highest propensity to fatness in the world. To truly see this, you should go to an event that has a large cross section of them. I have had two occasions to do this: 1) at Disney World in Florida and 2) on a Caribbean cruise. At Disney World, some fat white women insisted that their rather grotesque obesity was a "condition" and demanded motorized carts (meant for the handicapped) to get around the park. The Carribean cruise had some Europeans present, but it was very easy to tell them apart - the Europeans, almost without exception, had much more reasonable figures.

Indians may be close to caucasians at the genetic level but they look anything but. Don't believe what you see in Bollywood, as someone commented they are abberations. Indians oddly enough are misrepresenting themselves to the west, and one gets a sense to themselves as well. It perpetuates a horrible apartheid that has been in place for 5000 yrs with clear physical markers between the haves and have-nots. If you see the caste demographics of immigrants from India the poor lower-castes cannot be held guilty of trying to migrate to your countries. They are too crushed for thinking something so ambitious as escaping the yoke of their lighter brown masters.

So, for example, if blonde actress Cameron Diaz, daughter of an American-born Cuban father and an Old American (English, German, Cherokee) mother who grew up on the beach in Southern California, married, say, ex-boyfriend Matt Dillon, it would, theoretically, count as an "interracial marriage."

She is a brunette that dyes her hair blonde. Considering her ancestry it might very well be appropriately called an interracial marriage by Old American standards.

Indics are not Caucasian but they may be considered a mixed Caucasoid, as much as a quadroon might be.

>Don't believe what you see in Bollywood, as someone commented they are abberations. Indians oddly enough are misrepresenting themselves to the west, and one gets a sense to themselves as well. It perpetuates a horrible apartheid that has been in place for 5000 yrs with clear physical markers between the haves and have-nots.

In the west, they killed off inconvenient or despised minorities (red Indians, blacks, jews).

From an Indian brahmin perspective, I am against widespread random ( maybe exception for individual cases ) miscegenation

We have been brahmins for 5000 years and we intend remaining as brahmins for the next 5000 years

More than a gene, a cultural meme is also transmitted, and unless the new incoming person is also in tune with transmission of these cultural memes, transmission of culture will be lost - The objection is religious-cultural not racial

A few incoming persons may be willing to carry on the brahminical culture and we dont object to these , however in the majority of cases, the grandchildren will be general purpose white native and not superior IQ brahmin

In India, there are tens of millions of Indian christians and there is virtually zero intermarriage, and I fail to see why christians in the diaspora be married into without careful screening and vetting

There is also the IQ question, brahmin IQ has been carefully built up and guarded over the millenia and I am loathe to see it disappear by random mingling

"Indian kids dominate the national bee because they have a minor league circuit..."

"Indians also do this for geographic bee...and for math counts..."

Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent.

IQ - a magic number used to enhance the conceit of merchant minorities, convincing them that their various accomplishments have nothing to do with the wealth the host society has already managed to wrest from the earth well before said merchant minority ever arrived on the scene.

I'm skeptical that the Brahmins are particularly cleverer than the Merchant castes, in India. It would be interesting to see if that could be demonstrated, but I buy the idea that Jews are smart because of mercentile selection, not religious debating, so on the basis of analogy, I'm skeptical that Brahmins would have particularly advanced IQ.

Burton:"Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent."

I was going to say something about whites in South Africa as a comparison to Aryans in India, but South Africa does actually have a much higher GDP per head than India. I guess the Protestant/Germanic Work Ethic may be more important there than IQ per se.

i disagree totally that there is any stigma today attached to white men who date east/southeast women. that's not reality in 2010 america, canada, or australia. tall, good looking, successful white men with a lot to offer, will deliberately go after the best looking asian women, and are equally comfortable dating either white women or asian women.

>>Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent.

Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700. the British refused to let India industrialize and force-fed them British cotton in the name of "free trade". They also destroyed native agriculture and turned north india into a giant opium field to feed to the chinese, By 2100, India should be back to its normal historical place, after suffering a "colonial penalty" of 500 years.

Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700.

In 1700, the world was full of poor peasants. India and China had craploads of them, as first cut, they were roughly equally productive. A good guess would be roughly 50% of humanity lived in India and China.

What makes you think India would have been capable of industrializing back then? They haven't been able to since. Indeed, free of the British, Indians chose worse economic policies than the British ever imposed on them.

anon:"Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700. the British refused to let India industrialize and force-fed them British cotton in the name of "free trade". They also destroyed native agriculture and turned north india into a giant opium field to feed to the chinese, By 2100, India should be back to its normal historical place, after suffering a "colonial penalty" of 500 years."

My Indian students tell me this, but looking at the actual economic data, the Raj didn't collapse the Indian economy. Rather, India remained static while the European world bounded ahead. But India still did better than China, until after 1948.

>in 1700, the world was full of poor peasants. India and China had craploads of them, as first cut, they were roughly equally productive. A good guess would be roughly 50% of humanity lived in India and China

In the 18th century, the standard of living was appreciably higher in South India than in England. This is attributed to superior right of contract and job security. Check out "Late Victorian Holocausts" on Amazon for the data. India and China still held a commanding 25% of the world economy combined in 1860, when England was industrialized.

>My Indian students tell me this, but looking at the actual economic data, the Raj didn't collapse the Indian economy. Rather, India remained static while the European world bounded ahead.

Your students are right. The Indian economy grew at less than 1% per annum under the Raj. It grew at 3% under the failed Nehruvian state and since liberalization, it has grown at 6%.

>Don't believe that Indians lived in perfect harmony with themselves and their neighbours until Evil Whitey came along!

So how come none of y'all crunched the data, sahib, instead of waiting around for us? One caste of Whitey tells you when you've been wronged, but the isteve caste of Whitey tells you when you're plain wrong.

It's mind boggling that someone can economically compare a massive goddamned chunk of Asia, a subcontinent, with an island in the misty north, as if all's equal in the beginning of the factoring. Sure the sleazy Anglo-Saxons and Cromwell reinvitees robbed the joint, but don't pretend that it's some paradise, or that you even know how to make it one. Are you there right now, trying to turn it into a better place, or are your kids on the spelling bee circuit here in old Kwa?

There is a public policy dimension to this: since mixed race NAM children are considered full NAMs for the purposes of affirmative action (e.g., our current prez), there is a subsidy at work. Non-NAM parents who intermarry with NAMs can have an anchor baby for public and private benefits purposes. Another way of looking at it is as a bizarro version of the Ottoman blood tax, except in this case it is not Christians who are punished, but those who don't pull an Ann Stanley Dunham.

India and China still held a commanding 25% of the world economy combined in 1860, when England was industrialized.

Would I be right in thinking that this 'commanding' is largely statistical. ie most of that trade was Indian peasnats, famers and merchants trading with each other. Since Im guessing they were more than 25% of the owrlds population Im not sure how impressed Im supposed to be by that 25% figure.

This commanding only takes on significance when you introduce international trade

I don't doubt that the smartest Indians are very smart, but I just don't see India becoming a developed country anytime soon, or ever. The Indian underclass is simply too large. I doubt that most of the Indians who frequent this site would even disagree with me on this, as they seem to hold lower caste Indians in complete contempt.

Would I be right in thinking that this 'commanding' is largely statistical. ie most of that trade was Indian peasnats, famers and merchants trading with each other.

I think it's more to do with the fact that trade was trade good limited to a stronger extent. Trade, in terms of value, was to a large extent trade in tropical/subtropical things that Europeans couldn't get or that the countries within that region had comparative advantages to produce. Speciality crops that you can grow in the European climate zone are limited and the settler colonies were fairly thinly populated and undeveloped. That was not very predictive of what would happen when trade shifted towards manufactured goods that "European" means of production gave them an advantage in producing and that Indians would appear to have had no advantages in producing (and to a lesser extent when Europeans applied their methods of production to other colonial holdings to which they were more amenable).

Caribbean Hindu immigrants to the USA are almost entirely low caste and they do better socio-economically than blue collar whites, even though they lack the IQ to win spelling beesTheir caste rules ban illegitimacy and criminality

Steve had a post a few years ago, on the black looting after Katrina vs the law abiding nature of low caste slum dwellers after Mumbai floods

By comparison, Brazil has 50% low IQ blacks and mullatoes, whereas the comparable figure for India is 40% , ( untouchable, tribals and muslims ), of which only the muslims ( 15% muslims are 50% of the Jail population ) are violent criminals

I have walked several times past midnight, alone , through untouchable slums and felt perfectly safe, but I would never enter a muslim ghetto, day or night

Mauritius has a per-capita GDP of $10K, with its productive members ,5% euros and 50% low caste hindus supporting a parasitical class of 15% muslims and 30% blacks

In the recent global downturn, Indian economy has managed 8% growth without any govt stimulus and next year is estimated to be 9.5%, as compared to the bankrupt westand the Indian economy is non-dependent on exports

As far as memorization, Reverse digit span is one of the measures of g

Regarding Nikki Haley , IMHO, she is no better, no worse than the rest of her competition

However, back in 2004, in the Republican primary her opponent Coon, attacked her for her birth name Nimrata Randhawa, her current Republican opponents have attacked her for her name and previous religion

Whereas in the Democratic party, several Hindu-Sikh legislators have won their seats without changing their name or their religionIn Ohio, in the Democratic primary, one of the winners was Surya Yellamanchalli, and he did not need to change his name or his religion

The Republican party needs introspection on whether it deliberately wants to drive Indian Americans to the Democrats

The Republican message that is sent out is that Indian Americans are unacceptable unless they change their religion

In the book 'Desi Land' by Shalini Shankar, looking at a cluster of Jat Sikhs in San Jose, the rules were No blacks, no muslims, no hispanicsAny girl caught was deported to IndiaThe other Indian kids and neighbors reported any dating activity to the parentsA girl who eloped with a black was outcastedAnother girl who eloped with a muslim, was outcasted and her parents were also boycotted at the local sikh gurudwara

Some one commented on seeing more black men with white women then anything else although it would not be what the stats would lead you to think you would find. I don't know where he was from but here in the mid Atlantic that is certainly true. I can count into the high numbers ( 20's) of bm/wf's before I see a white man with an Asian woman, black women or a black man with a black woman. Oh, many of these young white woman are very good looking. There are plenty of Asian young women around too.I have done this a number of times and I know other people that have noticed the same thing.One thing, it seems to be all or nothing. They are all out or you see no one. Is it the moon?

Here, is something else. I have noticed that there seems to be growing body of erotic photography that plays off of the use contrast of black men and white women nude bodies.(perhaps having sex). It is for sure art photography and very powerful and erotic. Who is doing this I don't know but there must be a market for it for sure.

Both interracial marriage and sex between blacks and white have increased greatly since the 1970's.There should be a good population of children from these unions by now.Do we know anything about how the children of black white parents mate?Some one told me they "thought" that females would seek mates that were like their fathers and the males would seek a mate that was like their mothers. Sounds good but noproof.Is anything known in this matter?

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.